An evening with “Bud” Robertson, part 1

Not as clear as I would have liked, but my Southern Unionist moment for the evening. Dr. Robertson talking about Elizabeth “Crazy Bet” Van Lew.

As I mentioned in my hasty post from just over 12 hours ago, I had the opportunity last night, to listen to Dr. James I. “Bud” Robertson, Jr., at the Hagerstown CWRT. In that distinctive south-central Piedmont Virginia accent, he engaged the audience with quick glimpses of stories from his latest work, The Untold Civil War. His objectives with the book sing true to my own work… to tell the untold stories about common folks in the Civil War.

While I sat listening, however, I heard more than him just talking about the book.

For one, what we had before us was someone who had a major role in the Centennial. That’s something that deserves a pause.

In fact, the best question of the night was the one that asked Dr. Robertson to reflect on the Centennial years. Of course, as some/several readers may know, in 1961, Robertson was nominated by President John F. Kennedy to serve as the executive director of the U.S. Civil War Centennial Commission… this after the Commission, as Kennedy saw it, was heading disastrously down the wrong course. Indeed, Robertson points to the fiasco known as Third Manassas (the Centennial reenactment held on NPS land… which apparently set the precedent for no further reenactments on NPS land) and in the early attempt to turn the Centennial into more of a “celebration”. After Kennedy cleaned house (giving fourteen members the option to resign before he fired them), that changed. Robertson’s appointment came in the wake of that action… though not immediately, as he explained (though I don’t think I can do it nearly as much justice in writing about it here). Still, the renewed commission still faced bumpy times ahead. Robertson, for example, acknowledges the various trials encountered in holding a commemoration (as opposed to a “celebration”) in the modst of the civil rights movement. More specifically, he points to the example of the commemorative effort for the Emancipation (September 22, 1962). If I heard correctly (and I’m pretty sure I did), Kennedy, appearing rather uneasy over the intersection of the event with the civil rights movement, headed for Cape Cod and appointed Adlai Stevenson II to represent. Ultimately, there was fallout over several things related to the event.

Robertson also mentioned personal interactions with Kennedy… from his remark as to how photographs didn’t capture “just how red Jack Kennedy’s hair really was”… to extending the invitation to the President, for Caroline to come over sometime to play with his daughter of the same age. The latter received a bit of a chuckle from Kennedy, which Robertson later realized (smiling) was more of a laugh directed at him, personally, for making such a suggestion that would entail all sorts of complications for security. Then too there’s the story of President Lyndon Johnson wanting to have a dinner arranged (on short notice), to which 100 people should be invited. Miraculously it seemed to Robertson, they pulled it off. Good stuff, and I felt like I was on the edge of my seat the entire time.

What we didn’t hear about were Robertson’s recollections from 1963, of his working David Mearns, director of the Library of Congress, to assist in the planning of Kennedy’s funeral. As mentioned at the beginning, however, there were some things that he didn’t wish to recount… and understandably so. Still, it would have been interesting to know some details about how they researched President Lincoln’s funeral, after which Kennedy’s was patterned.

In short, it would provide some fascinating reading if Dr. Robertson would put all of his recollections of the Centennial into a book… especially in the manner in which he told those stories to us last night… as if sitting by the warm, crackling fireplace. I’ll add, that it seems to come full circle, back to the point he makes with his recent book… people at the center of some great untold stories. I suppose, to satisfy at least part of my curiousity over the problems faced in the Centennial, I’ll have to settle for a copy of Robert J. Cook’s Troubled Commemoration.

I can’t close this first part of “an evening with ‘Bud’ Robertson” without also mentioning something I didn’t give as much consideration to before. Specifically… how there is such a great, gaping disconnect between government involvement with the Sesquicentennial, as opposed to the Centennial. I know, I know… the times, politics, economy, etc., etc. are different, but… still.

I spoke with a couple of Congresspeople in 2011 about this and they saw funding the Sesqui as a grab for tourism bucks for Va. and they were uncomfortable with the notion that many of the battlefields seemed to be the special province of Neo-Confs.

Pat, I think that was a rather lame explanation by the Congress people. For one, the “Neo-Confederate” remark shows they are clearly out of touch regarding the battlefields of the NPS, and second, regarding tourism… what’s the difference between 1961-1965 and 2011-2015? Wouldn’t most communities love to see a positive shot in the arm to infuse a small economic benefit (most especially now)? Still, the chief point is… I find it strange… though I can’t say I’m surprised… that the chance to educate and learn from Sesqui wasn’t mentioned by the Congressman you talked with.

“On the Va. Tourism issue: Any Fed dollars that send people South take away vacationers from elsewhere.”

Please be more clear, because my first sense was that I detect animosity for Virginia and/or the South. Are you speaking from the angle of the politicians with whom you spoke, or yourself? Keep in mind, however, my view on the failing of the Fed govt. to partake in the Sesqui focuses not on distribution of dollars (especially in our economic climate), but on what appears to be a lack of appreciation at the Federal level, for the significant educational opportunities possible from the Sesqui. But, frankly, even Fed involvement in that can be seen as a double-edged sword, in this political climate.

“Many Congresspeople grew up during the Centennial and that was not a very good experience.”

That too is a weak excuse. All the more reason to right, in the Sesqui, what was wrong in the Centennial… but again, that also brings about the double-edged sword, and in this economy and political climate, it might be best that they aren’t involved. There are larger matters at hand.

Ummm, as I said before this based on conversations with two Congresspeople. I was speaking to them informally about the desirability of funding the Sesqui. They saw the Sesqui funding as primarily a way to promote tourism in Va. Just as the Feds don’t spend cash to promote domestic tourism to NYC since folks in Florida would resent tourists being diverted from the beaches of Ft. Lauderdale, so too non-Virginia Congresspeople had no enthusiasm for spending money that would likely benefit only a few states and which would presumably redirect tourists from their own states to places like Richmond and Gettysburg. That doesn’t sound very anti-Southern, more pro-local tourism revenues.

By the way I put the original comment up because so many Civil War bloggers seem flummoxed by the lack of big-time Federal support for the Sesqui. The tourism diversion factor definitely plays a role in limiting funding.

You wrote: “my view on the failing of the Fed govt. to partake in the Sesqui focuses not on distribution of dollars (especially in our economic climate), but on what appears to be a lack of appreciation at the Federal level, for the significant educational opportunities possible from the Sesqui.” Short of President Obama dressing up as a Union soldier and Norman Cantor doing his General Lee impersonation I’m not sure how the Feds do this without spending bucks.

The failure of the Civil War community to rally around a central theme insured that the Feds would not get behind this. I’ve worked on legislation many times and politicians will do nothing if the advocacy community is divided and out of touch with the general public. The only theme that had a chance to get the general public’s attention was the one highlighted in the film “Lincoln”. While that theme was emphasized by a few bloggers and web sites, most CWRTs and other advocates etc still seemed to view the sesqui through the frame of the Centennial, i.e. it’s all about the battlefields.

On the other hand, back in 2008 and 2009 President Obama provided a unique focus on Lincoln in his campaign and inaugural. Lincoln is a beloved figure and very non-controversial (outside of the Civil War community), which helps to show how out of touch some in the community are with the emerging American public.

If you recall the Bicentennial of the Revolution, the focus was not on the battles, it was on the Declaration of Independence. It was not the military figures that were lionized as much as it was the political ones. That rekindled, for better or worse, America’s love affair with the Founders. Recall that 1976 occurred at the end of a long and unpopular war, with a president whose legitimacy was in question (i.e. did Ford make a deal to pardon Nixon),during a recession. Yet Americans could put everything aside to celebrate freedom.

The capstone of the Civil War is the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, yet the Civil War community seems much more focused on recreating battles than on celebrating acts that allowed non-whites even the possibility of not being enslaved and of becoming something whites took for granted, citizens. A real celebration that could inspire American would have focused on the Emancipation Proclamation, or the passage of the 13 Amendment, or the ratification of the 14th Amendment, but the bulk of the Civil War community is not even all that certain the war was about slavery! By clinging to a battle-focused Civil War commemoration, the Civil War community makes 1861 to 1868 as relevant to modern Americans as the War of 1812 Bicentennial. (Hey, those guys back in 1812 were courageous too!)

“Ummm, as I said before this based on conversations with two Congresspeople”

O.K., I understand what you meant now. I just saw your comment leaving the door open to a range of meanings, and I wanted to be sure what you meant.

“The capstone of the Civil War is the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, yet the Civil War community seems much more focused on recreating battles”

I disagree there (the CW community being more focused on recreating battles). There are reenactments going on, and Gettysburg will be the largest, but most aren’t on the scale of what we saw in the 1990s and early 00s. Additionally, there are many localized projects going on that have no connection with refighting battles, but rather, focusing on how the war impacted communities. Outside the general area, I don’t think folks realize this as much because these aren’t the things that generally grab the attention of the major media.

“than on celebrating acts that allowed non-whites even the possibility of not being enslaved and of becoming something whites took for granted, citizens.”

That can be controversial, even with African-Americans, and justifiably so considering the limited allowances in being considered a “citizen”. I have an excellent example of this coming up in a post (hopefully this month). without spilling the beans, it has something to do with pensions.

“the bulk of the Civil War community is not even all that certain the war was about slavery!”

I’m also not convinced of this. Don’t get me wrong… I know for a fact that some think that way, but I’ve seen nothing measurable to be able to suggest “the bulk”.

One of the things that came to mind while reading your comments was how (if at all) the US will treat the 250th of the AmRev. I suspect there will be some who wish to avoid it as much as the Sesqui of the CW, but then… that is over a decade away. Who can really say, considering?

1. Robert, while I see a broad range of activities being put on by the CW community, the general public, and the politicians they elect see battle reenactments. I go to reenactments and I appreciate re-enactors, but to the general public the are playing soldier.

2. It is not controversial that the Civil War brought citizenship to non-whites. Nor is it controversial (among scholars) that right up to and through the Centennial, many whites devoted themselves to depriving non-whites (not just blacks, by the way) of their citizenship rights.

3. The 14th Amendment remains controversial on the political right, witness the “anchor baby” controversy.

4. On the slavery as the war’s cause issue, go to many CWRT (outside of the more liberal urban areas) and say that the Confederacy was founded to defend the enslavement of African American Americans and see what response you get.

“while I see a broad range of activities being put on by the CW community, the general public, and the politicians they elect see battle reenactments. I go to reenactments and I appreciate re-enactors, but to the general public the are playing soldier.”

That, regretfully, is the limited understanding of things, on the part of the gen pub and politicians.

“It is not controversial that the Civil War brought citizenship to non-whites. Nor is it controversial (among scholars) that right up to and through the Centennial, many whites devoted themselves to depriving non-whites (not just blacks, by the way) of their citizenship rights.”

As one who was formerly in the museum community, at a museum which wished to bring in more history about African-Americans in that era, I can say for a fact that it is controversial. We had several meetings with local African-Americans who verbalized this, quite clearly. Additionally, while Emanacipation was the start on the road to citzenship equality, it was also seen as less than fulfilling in its wake. There are some who still share this “memory”… again, I’ve been privy to it.

My remark has nothing to do with the political right. Frankly, I could care less what right or left have to say about much of anything regarding history.

“On the slavery as the war’s cause issue, go to many CWRT (outside of the more liberal urban areas) and say that the Confederacy was founded to defend the enslavement of African American Americans and see what response you get.”

Again, with all due respect to what you think is there… I don’t put much weight in a suggestion that goes without careful analysis of measured samplings from a broad field of survey. I’ll also say, CWRTs are a limited range of study. Keep in mind also… I’m even in the South where some think that belief alone is fact… some.

n November 1958, with the Civil War centennial approaching and the National Park Service in the midst of its Mission 66 program to update the parks’ infrastructure, I was assigned to the Southeast Region as regional research historian in response to a request by Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant III, chairman of the National Civil War Centennial Commission. Grant asked the NPS to give priority to completing the programmed Mission 66 development at the Civil War battlefield parks by the one-hundredth anniversary of the battle commemorated. Most of the Service’s Civil War parks, including Manassas, were then in the Southeast Region. The centennial for the Manassas park would be 2l July 1961.

Superintendent Wilshin had focused his energies on a major reenactment of the first battle of Manassas, and planning for Mission 66 development either lagged or was postponed in favor of the reenactment. Key managers in the Southeast Regional Office and in Washington did not appreciate how the superintendent allocated the park’s resources.

The reenactment took place, after many vexing problems were mastered, as scheduled. The day was hot, dusty, and humid, with large crowds and traffic jams. Insofar as senior management was concerned, the reenactment was of no permanent benefit to the park, the Park Service, or the nation. Because of these views and the damage done to the landscape, the Service made an important policy decision: there would be no more reenactments on national park lands.

Robert – I’ve not seen any evidence that the battlefields are “the special province of Neo-Confs” as Mr. Young states, at least not the ones I’ve visited in recent years. But I suppose it should come as no surprise that members of Congress are clueless about that.

I think the shrinking interest in our nation’s history (particularly the Sesquicentennial) is due to a number of factors which others have also pointed out before: – the de-emphasis in our schools, the focus on our celebrity culture vs. our history, politicization, the demonization of many of our nation’s heroes and, the simple fact that with each generation, these events become more detached and distant. My grandparents knew Civil War veterans – that’s a very real connection. That connection no longer exists.

Robertson is a national treasure, in my view. I would love to have been there. Good post.

“I’ve not seen any evidence that the battlefields are ‘the special province of Neo-Confs’”

I don’t get that either, and yes, I agree also that it shows that some members of Congress are clueless.

Regarding the shrinking interests (or the lack of interests to begin with), I’ve seen various things that argue in favor and against that suggestion. Still, we also have the example of Maryland… a state that would rather place greater emphasis on the War of 1812, and try their best (at least the state legislators) not to touch the Civil War with a ten foot pole. Fortunately, there are localized efforts who think otherwise and makes strides to take advantage to both educate and… yes… take advantage of the opportunity to bring tourism to a locality. It only makes sense that this is done in order to give a boost to the the economy.

Robertson is a national treasure, and I think his awards, publications, years of work as an educator, and number of students that cycled through his upper level CW course (22,000) speaks for itself.

Richard, you wrote “Robert – I’ve not seen any evidence that the battlefields are “the special province of Neo-Confs” as Mr. Young states”

I actually did not state that, the two Congresspeople did.

On the larger issues:

1. Look, in real life I never see a Confederate flag. Bring someone who is not a Civil War buff to, say, Bull Run on a busy summer weekend and they are going to see them by the score on bumper stickers, belt buckles, and baseball hats. Now you and I might be able to explain these away, but for the non-Civil War obsessed, many of the battlefields seem to be pilgrimage sites for Lost Causers.

2. I’ve been to Civil War events with non-white friends, and the minute the battle flag appears in any context other than inside a display case, there is a palpable physical reaction from my friends. “Does he want to own me?” was what one friend asked me disgustedly when he saw someone display the battle flag.

Since we go to these sites all the time, we just tune the Neo-Conf stuff out, but believe me, to the non-buff, it is very noticeable and often disturbing.

3. Also, when I’ve gone on tours of Civil War sites with non-white friends and Confederate leaders have been introduced by guides, my friends, at the end of the tours have asked “Did Gen. So and So own slaves”. When the answer is “Yes”, they’ve asked with disgust why that was not brought up in the tour.

4. The bizarre proliferation of secession petitions after the reelection of a black president last year led a lot of Americans to wonder if some very dangerous attitudes towards our country were still alive.

I realize your comment was directed to Richard, Pat, but let’s make sure this doesn’t stray too far from the intent of my post… which it’s starting to do. I’ll add to that… take care in bringing discussions of modern politics into this. I may have broached it, but prefer it remain limited, and carefully constructed to fit the post.

I understand and appreciate that Robert, as I appreciate you writing generally as well. However, in the original post you wrote:

“I can’t close this first part of “an evening with ‘Bud’ Robertson” without also mentioning something I didn’t give as much consideration to before. Specifically… how there is such a great, gaping disconnect between government involvement with the Sesquicentennial, as opposed to the Centennial. I know, I know… the times, politics, economy, etc., etc. are different, but… still.”

Since I had actually visited two Congresspeople and spoken to them incidentally in favor of funding Sesqui activities, I thought I would raise the views of those who did not support that effort.

I live in a mostly non-white community and I am the only white person in my workplace. I have brought my friends and co-workers to Civil War sites and events, and I thought I would share their views. They only relate to these sites and events as people living in the 21st Century.

In addition, I served seven terms as Chairman of the New York Immigration Coalition, a coalition of 240 immigrant groups. Because I write a column for an immigrant web site called The Immigrants’ Civil War and because within certain immigrant communities I am a public figure, many non-white immigrants speak to me about the war, the movie “Lincoln”, and the evolution of the 14th Amendment. All I’ve tried to do in this thread is give a sense of how the contemporary non-CW fan/buff/historian non-white folks I speak to all day have told me they relate to this.

Until the film “Lincoln” most of them told me the CW150 left them cold. Now they see that it applies them. As I told my American Civics class last week, “without the 14th Amendment, you would not be citizens”. The Civil War can’t get more meaningful than that.

As a matter of fact I even hesitated on bringing that last comment in, because I anticipated the possibilities of what might come from it. Still, it was an observation that I felt worth mentioning. Perhaps I should have closed the loop, to some degree. I think, with the Centennial, Kennedy appears interested/concerned about what happened (clearly so, in that he cleared fourteen members from the commission), but he remained generally a watcher… as did (it seems) Johnson. Who knows, maybe I’m not fully aware of what went on (hence my desire to get the book about the Centennial), but that’s my take on it so far. I think there was a feeling that a connection between the Fed and the Centennial was necessary, and the White House remained active, but with very limited ” activities that stopped short of “fingers in the pie”.

I better understand why you mentioned the Congress people, especially the point about funding. Again, they are focused on their constituency. Yet, I can’t help but be bothered by their comment about the battlefields and the “Neo-Confederates”. This, in fact is extremely odd considering many of those who might be considered “Neo-Confederates” or simply those with an active interest in preserving, in some way, the story of their Confederate ancestors, see the exact opposite with the NPS.

While I’m in the midst of much of it, here in Virginia, I have no doubt that others who are unfamiliar are shocked with what they find. Still, in some ways, I think part of the first-timer experience should come with an anticipation of things that might be outside their zone of comfort. I have a New York friend who has lived in Virginia only three years… and he’s still finding some things unusual, but I’ve been able to give him a different perspective than that which he came here with. For that matter, I’ve found things outside my comfort zone in areas other than my home… and I say that about things experienced in the North, deeper in the South, and in Europe… but that’s often just the culture-shock of experience a different place.

True, but you didn’t offer any disagreement so I assume you agreed. And then you seemed to confirm your agreement in a follow up comment, so I’m not sure what your disagreeing with in regards to my characterization of what you wrote. You wrote:

“many of the battlefields seem to be pilgrimage sites for Lost Causers.” That would seem to line up with the notion that battlefields are, ““the special province of Neo-Confs.”

You’re painting with a very broad brush. Many of those folks (including myself) are simply exhibiting pride in our heritage. And, let’s remember, these folks are mostly tourists, not academics.

Having grown up in Virginia and traveled throughout the South, the symbolism of the Confederate flag means different things to different people. I think most folks know that – at least in the South. I’m not going to rehash the tired, worn out debate over the Confederate flag. We’re all too familiar with all the points and counter-points.

Regarding the slavery issue, I think it’s rather shallow to expect that slavery be discussed at every CW venue and with every CW topic. That may be what some are focused on, others are not. Even Brooks Simpson once stated he felt that mentioning slavery every time a Confederate figure was discussed was unnecessary (I believe this was during the McDonnell proclamation flap). It’s no more necessary to do that than it is to mention Lincoln’s views on race every time his name is brought up. I believe much of that is driven by personal agendas.

Finally . . .

“The bizarre proliferation of secession petitions after the reelection of a black president last year led a lot of Americans to wonder if some very dangerous attitudes towards our country were still alive.”

Hi Richard. I realize that when I write something on a blog, I know who i am, but those reading my comments do not. Sorry for just jumping in without any explanation for the remarks in question.

Let me first address the conversation with the Congressional Reps.

I was in DC on another lobbying matter and just wanted to talk informally about what i thought was the importance of funding a variety of functions around the Sesqui including battlefields preservation. I was not representing anyone other than myself, at least insofar as I was talking about the CW. My former Congressman Bob Mrazek (I think that’s how you spell it) had been a big supporter of preservation, and I was hoping that these folks thought the same way.

In writing about it here, I was merely reporting the views that I had heard. I do that often in my line of work without necessarily cluttering up the conversation with my deepest thoughts and feelings. For example, I met with Sen. Schumer on an unrelated matter Friday for a couple of hours and reported on the conversation to colleagues without offering my views of what he said. I certainly identified my report on the two Congresspeople speaking about the CW150 as what they said, not what i thought. I think there should be a major Federal expenditure that would encompass multiple focal points ranging from the military to the social and political.

On a different matter:

You said: “Regarding the slavery issue, I think it’s rather shallow to expect that slavery be discussed at every CW venue and with every CW topic.” I agree, and of course I never suggested that a discussion of, for example, Civil War use of Morse Code or the death of a particular Alabama private include a discussion of slavery unless it was appropriate.

What i said was that my non-white friends have in the past found it unusual that a tour guide will often talk about a major Civil War figure and neglect to mention that he owned non-white people as objects. As one friend said after such a tour, and I paraphrase, “It was important that General _____ went to church, but it wasn’t important that he owned people who looked like me?”

Anyway, I am only bringing my experiences to the table. Perhaps you and your friends have reacted differently.